Customer Reviews

Marie and Bruce

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The opening scenes are Juliane Moore doing more cussing than I've heard in the past 5 years. This movie is just awful. It makes no sense at all. The wife follows a dog into this ethereal forest. She lies down on the ground and that's where I got up, opened my DVD, removed it and tossed it in the garbage. What a disappointment and I cannot believe great actors such as Moore and Broderick would stoop so low as to make such a horrible horrible movie. Did't even deserve one star.

"Marie and Bruce," based on a play by Wallace Shawn, focuses on one day in the life of a dysfunctional Manhattan couple (Julianne Moore, Matthew Broderick). The film opens with Marie's pronouncement that their long-deteriorating marriage is over and she is leaving. During the next 24 hours, each vents, recalls happier times, and expresses hopes for the future. Despite a few attempts to open up the action the movie can't shake its stage origins. It is very talky, and because you have two unhappy people unloading their frustrations and gripes, things become pretty grating. Both Moore and Broderick are good, but it's hard to warm to their characters. Though "Marie and Bruce" is only 90 minutes long, it seems endless. Language is often profane and there is some nudity, which explains the R rating. There are no bonus extras in this bare-bones edition.

This took five years for Genius to get around onto DVD, but I suppose they are trying to span some of their little-known sets like this over time. Am still trying to find a category for this, but mostly it fits into the day in the life of a dysfunctional marriage in Manhattan film.

Julianne Moore is why I watch any movie, and in the end, was the only reason I suffered through to see the credits role. Imagine a mix of What Dreams May Come, meets Blindness, meets Broderick running from the Out on a Limb set (filmed locally here and I swear he is wearing the same clothes and glasses) meets a mid-life crisis. The film is narrated by our married couple both to the camera and in their heads, sometimes blurring what is real and what becomes a dream through the coarse of one day in the city.

The dialogue becomes so tedious and frustrating by anyone who opens their mouth that you wish it would have stayed on the stage, as I believe this was the original location of this pedantic story. I cannot find the words to describe the variety of self loathing narratives and forced conversations. To summarize briefly, nothing jumped out at me to hold an interest and I give it another star just on JM's ability to hold a film together with her expressions and genuine look of disgust in what she is doing.

No extras to speak of from Genius once again.

Can anyone plase tell me what is the name of the song they used in the trailer of this film? Tha last song. Thank You.

This was totally worth the wait. Julianne Moore did a brilliant job of playing the bored wife character against her even more boring husband. The dialogue and the inner monologues were witty and funny. Julianne Moore is at her best in this role and look more beautiful than ever. I would recommend this to anyone who loves the independent film works or something that makes you laugh out-loud from the plainess that it portrays life as.

Wallace Shawn wrote the very fine 'My Dinner with Andre', a talky but sensitive film that created a niche for conversational stories without plot. Sadly the qualities of that play to film result did not make it with his MARIE AND BRUCE. On paper it looks as though this strenuously boring film should be worth watching: Shawn's previous credentials, the direction by Tom Cairns, and the presence of Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick together with little feature appearances by the likes of Campbell Scott and Blossom Dearie should suggest investing time in viewing.

Unfortunately the film's premise is so dull that even the technique of having characters speak exactly what is in their minds mixed with dialogue seemingly more appropriate for human ears and adding dreamlike sequences including some rather randy voyeurism - stage worthy though these techniques may be - just can't make this dreary story of a day in the dissolution of a VERY bad marriage work. The only character in the film with whom the viewer can empathize is a friendly dog. Pass on this sad flop. Grady Harp, March 09

Having just come across this movie on cable by chance we gave it a shot, in lack of any better option expecting a drama with a comedy twist as was advertised. Never had we imagined we would be faced with a Woody Allen (without the humor and wit) meets Eyes Wide Shut (without the sensuality but with amble weirdness).

It depicts a woman craving for the attention from her husband, who is totally bizarre and without a clue what she is lacking. Surely not infrequent sentiments in relationships. She is longing for sensuality and sensitivity (personified in her dreams as a fluffy golden retriever) and he merely longs for more sex.

The two reasonably well known actors play the roles exactly as seems to be intended but it is doubtful either of their characters would resonate much with any even grossly bizarre people among us? In fact all this movie left us with was brief contemplation as to whether to get a second dog - perhaps a golden retriever?

If any of you Freudians manage to sit through movie in its entirety would you be so kind to add your perspective on this movie and why anyone should see it least to say would finance it.